Home Group Limited (202414314)

Background

1. The resident lived in a second-floor flat within a block of 6 flats. She raised concerns with the landlord about how it handled several repairs and maintenance issues. She also expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to her reports of alleged drug dealing by a neighbour. In August 2025, she moved to another property managed by the same landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs and maintenance.
   2. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord:
   1. Made an offer of reasonable redress for its handling of repairs and maintenance.
   2. Responsible for maladministration in its handling of reports of ASB.
   3. Responsible for service failure in its complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Repairs and maintenance

4. There were several failures in the landlord’s handling of repairs and maintenance. The landlord acknowledged its failures and provided a reasonable amount of compensation to resolve the complaint.

Reports of ASB

5. The landlord did not follow its policy to respond to reports of ongoing drug dealing and use by the resident’s neighbour.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord acknowledged some of its complaint failures and offered a reasonable amount of compensation for these. However, it failed to fully investigate and respond to the complaint about its handling of ASB, which was one of the complaint issues.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Installation of grab rails in the bathroom

7. The landlord’s aids and adaptation policy says that works will usually be carried out within 4 weeks.
8. On 22 February 2024, the landlord received a letter from the Council’s occupational therapist recommending that grab rails be installed in the resident’s bath. The landlord approved this adaptation promptly and raised a job on 28 February 2024 to install 2 grab rails.
9. The first appointment was scheduled for 25 May 2024, after the resident had raised a complaint. The landlord could not complete the work because plaster needed to be removed first. It attended 2 further times, and the grab rails were installed on 23 September 2024. The delay of approximately 6 months in completing this work was not reasonable.
10. Soon after the installation, the resident raised concerns about whether the rails were secure. The landlord arranged an inspection, which was appropriate, but there were delays and miscommunication about appointment.
11. On 24 February 2025, the landlord inspected the rails and determined that further work was needed to make them secure. It was not reasonable for the landlord to mark the job as complete when the rails were not properly installed. A further appointment took place on 4 April 2025, when the resident asked for the rails to be removed as she was planning to move.

Communal area repairs

12. The building has one communal entrance door serving 6 flats. Problems with the door began in 2022 when the locking mechanism failed. The landlord attended within 24 hours, in line with its policy, when issues were reported, but the door continued to fail.
13. By 2024, the door could not be opened on several occasions, and emergency services attended multiple times. The fire service eventually removed the lock, citing fire safety concerns, after the landlord said it could not attend until the next day.
14. In July 2024, the landlord raised a job to supply and fit a new communal entrance door. This was completed on 24 October 2024, with follow up works being finished in January 2025.
15. While the landlord was entitled to try attempt repairs before replacement, it took too long to decide to replace the door given the repeated reports over 2 years and the impact on residents.
16. There were also delays in completing repairs to the bin store lock as well as the bike store lock which were raised during the complaint process. These delays were not reasonable.

Communal cleaning and grounds maintenance

17. The contract for the cleaning of communal areas ended in December 2024. The building was not added to the new contract that began in January 2024. After the resident raised the issue and continued to chase, the landlord completed a deep clean in May 2024 and then added the building to the contract.
18. This approximate 5-month period without cleaning due to this error was not reasonable.
19. Concerns about grounds maintenance were raised during the complaint process. The evidence shows the landlord acted on these concerns, communicated with the contractor, and followed up to ensure issues were addressed.

Impact on the resident

20. The landlord’s failures in handling repairs and maintenance had a significant impact on the resident, including:
    1. No usable grab rails for over a year after they were recommended, leaving her concerned about safety.
    2. Instances where she could not enter or leave the property, causing inconvenience and worry about fire safety.
    3. Periods without a lock on the communal door, leaving her feeling insecure. During this time, she reported that someone who did not live in the building was found unconscious from drug use in the hall.
    4. Living for five months with the communal halls and stairs being dirty.
    5. Spending time chasing the landlord about repairs and maintenance over several months, causing frustration.
21. It’s clear that the resident was caused unnecessary inconvenience by these issues. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays and errors in handling repairs and maintenance. It offered further compensation when the repairs were completed. The resident received £750 in total for these issues. In our view, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to put things right to resolve this aspect of the complaint.

22. The landlord provided evidence showing a history of ASB involving one of the resident’s neighbours, including ongoing drug dealing and use at the property. Several ASB cases had been opened previously, and the landlord provided information about cases dating back to 2021. This investigation focuses on reports made after the closure of the 2023 ASB case, as this period formed part of the resident’s complaint.
23. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will work in partnership with the police, local authorities, and other agencies, and provide support to residents. It will respond to reports of ASB within 3 working days, assess risk, interview the victim and perpetrator, agree an action plan, and communicate with all parties while the ASB case is open.
24. The resident reported ongoing drug activity following the closure of the 2023 ASB case. She raised this with the housing officer in October 2023 and was told a meeting would be arranged to discuss the issues further with the rest of the block. This meeting did not take place, and the housing officer was later absent for an extended period. This was not reasonable, as the landlord took no action on unresolved ASB concerns.
25. The resident continued raising concerns during housing officer’s absence, but the landlord did not respond. When the officer returned, they scheduled a meeting with residents, which took place on 30 April 2024. While hold the meeting was appropriate, it was unreasonable that it took 6 months to arrange.
26. Following the meeting, the landlord wrote a warning letter to the alleged perpetrator. However, it did not create an action plan as required by its policy.
27. The resident continued reporting ASB. A new housing officer took over in June 2024. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said the new housing officer would contact all parties, complete a risk assessment, and create an action plan. The landlord provided no evidence that it opened a new ASB case or followed its policy at this time or later. This was a further missed opportunity to respond appropriately.
28. The landlord’s failure to follow its ASB policy from late 2023 forwards was not reasonable. We have round maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB.
29. The landlord’s lack of response affected the resident significantly because she:
    1. Spent over a year repeatedly reporting issues without a meaningful response.
    2. Felt the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
    3. States that she witnessed drug dealing and drug users passed out in communal areas, which made her feel unsafe.
30. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failures identified and to pay £300 in compensation for its handling of reports of ASB and the resulting distress caused.

31. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and respond at stage 2 within 20 working days.
32. The landlord was a few days late in acknowledging the complaint at stage 1 but issued its response within the required timeframe.
33. The stage 2 complaint response was approximately 2 weeks late due to internal delays in approving compensation. This was not reasonable and caused frustration for the resident.
34. The landlord’s response addressed repairs and maintenance but did not investigate or respond to concerns about its handling of ASB, other than stating it would open a new case, which it did not follow up on. This left the resident feeling her concerns were not fully addressed.
35. The landlord offered £150 for the delay in resolving the complaint, which we consider reasonable compensation for the complaint handling failures. However, it did not acknowledge its failure in its handling of ASB in its complaint responses. For this reason, we have found service failure and have ordered the landlord to apologise.

Learning

Record keeping and communication

36. From late 2023 until April 2024, the housing officer was on extended leave. During this period, the block was not added to the cleaning contract, which the landlord said was due to absence. The resident struggled to contact the landlord, and ASB reports were not addressed. This is an area where the landlord could improve by ensuring there is staff coverage during extended absences.
37. When a new housing officer took over in June 2024, there was not a smooth handover of outstanding issues, including ASB concerns. This led to a lack of follow-up on agreed actions. Ensuring clear record keeping and a transfer of information when there is a change in housing officers could assist in preventing some of the failures identified in this report.